63 thoughts on “New autism lecture by Simon Baron Cohen”
LOADEDsaid:
PH, PP, G-man, and whoever else thinks IQ can possibly exist above a 160, wouldn’t we see the most brilliant people above that IQ threshold actually accomplishing something? I mean, if we look at the population statistics and standard deviations and everything, we’d find that people with an IQ above 160 should be fairly common or common enough to actually have an impact on society. Unless an IQ that extremely high is just so maladaptive for society and for the individual that it counteracts any productivity that may have come from being that gifted.
Anyways, point is, 160+ can’t be verified because there are no people who actually contribute anything from that sphere of intelligence, or supposed intelligence. It’s all just testing-ability above a certain threshold. Not only that but we fail to see them in any field of influence except maybe mathematics, physics, etc.
So maybe…maybe…visual and mathematical intelligence can be characterized as reaching the upper limits all the way up to 200 but verbal, logical, etc. are restricted to some score lower, maybe 150 verbal, 160 logical, etc.
Lets say that you live in a small country of one million people. Now lets say we devise a very sophisticated IQ test that can test all the way up to 200. This is very hard to do with any certifiable accuracy but lets assume we have managed it(in theory it is possible). Now we give this test to everyone in this country. By virtue of the test’s high ceiling no one would get a perfect score but a few might score very high. So what do we do, we rank order the scores in terms of rarity. For example we work out the average score and set that at an IQ of 100. We then get the absolute top scorer and assume this person has a level of intelligence that makes him/her smarter than a million people. Well based on this chart,
this would give that person an IQ of about 171 given that he is 1 in a million people(assuming we use 15 points per standard deviation). It really is as simple as that. In order for what you are saying to be true roughly 33 people would have to get an identical top score but if we had done our job right with designing the test this would be nearly impossible since no one could possibly get full marks. Simply put reality just does’t work that way, the higher up we go in difficulty the fewer people we find until eventually you would be hard pressed to find 1 or 2 people at the very top.
If you are not convinced yet then I urge you to take a look at chess rankings and the respective ELO scores. Most chess professionals cluster around a certain figure and then as we move up in ELO you will find fewer and fewer people with the same score(or within a few points) until you reach the very top where the first and second players are separated by 50 points while from first to tenth there is a spread of 100 points. Go to the average part of the rankings and you will find thousands of players within a 100 point spread. It really is as simple as that. As long as the pool of people you are testing is greater than 32,000 people then an IQ of over 160 is inevitable. Well the earth has billions, so 160 would be considered dull by a select lucky few people out there or roughly 0.000001% of the population.
I don’t doubt the statistical reasoning, just have a hard time believing that people with an IQ of 160 actually exist in regards to actual intelligence and not just test construction. I mean, it’s theoretical but you have to put a limit on how intelligent an individual of human society actually is. If you can give me the max ELO score and then tell me how many SDs it is away from the mean, I can get a good grasp on how IQ would be maximized in the human population.
I question IQs above 160–not because I think it’s biologically impossible, and not because I think actual IQ (g) is less meaningful above a certain range, but I think a lot of people that high are just expert test-takers–people with IQs around 150 who are obsessed with problem-solving or are obsessed with IQ for some reason. And also a lot of charlatans like to give out IQ scores in the 160+ range.
But I don’t think anything you said contradicts what Pumpkin and other IQ researchers have told us about IQ. Even in highly competitive fields, like astrophysics, most of the performers are going to be in the 130s to low 140s range. Assuming a normal distribution in both IQ and performance, there’s just not that many people with genius range IQs even in really competitive spaces. But in fields where actual performance is highly non-normal, like wealth and income, surely enough we see the highest performers go above the low-140s–Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs are all well over 150 (According to PP Mr. Gates may be as high as 170!!!)
Well, the US statistically speaking has roughly 10,000 people with an IQ above 160. You are right, that is not a lot of people at all, considering that these people will tend to fill up the ranks in the top positions in most fields but particularly STEM(since IQ tests tend to be modeled around the type of reasoning most commonly implemented in STEM fields). Some of those people might go into business, some might even become teachers and perhaps a few might end up doing nothing of note with their lives. However keep in mind that an IQ that high is beyond anything any one of us could possibly fathom, so these people have the cognitive tools to do something truly game changing in their lifetime. The odds of running into someone that smart in your life are very very low unless you hang out at high IQ societies. Also do note that even an IQ in the 140s or 150s is nothing to scoff at and people with such IQ’s IMO make up the bulk of the worlds preeminent intellectuals/scientists.
Slight correction: The actual figure of the 160+ IQ population in the US is likely higher than 10k, perhaps even double that figure due to the excellent tertiary education in the US and career opportunities that are second to none in the world, which has essentially attracted some of the brightest people in the world for the last 100 years.
If you ever want to get a sense of how truly smart someone with such an IQ is I would suggest playing chess. Then trying to play someone with an elo of 2000+ then if you have time try watching some high profile games(Carlsen, Kasparov etc) and then realize that these people are in a league of their own and have a chess IQ of 180+(5.33+ SD above average). Now if you think that you can take these people on or even come close to what they can do then maybe we should start rethinking the possibility of a 160+ IQ. However trust me you can’t, no one can, these people were singled out from a young age for their exceptional gift and at the moment there is very little reason to believe that there is anyone on the planet with even the cognitive potential to be able to beat Magnus Carlsen at chess and so with regards to chess he is truly 1 in 7.5 billion. Of course chess and IQ aren’t fully correlated but this to show that much like chess IQ can be viewed from that perspective and there likely exists a person out there with the highest IQ on the planet that is simply unmatched and it may not even be any one of the usual suspects, it might just be some guy sitting in some quiet corner office somewhere, hopefully trying to figure out the next breakthrough in physics or something like that.
What do you mean by IQ-ists? Do you not believe that people are born with varying degrees of intelligence or should I say varying degrees of potential. I am not an IQ absolutist but I do believe that we are born with a certain maximum potential for cognitive output(most never reach this potential). So our cognitive output can increase across time(don’t imagine anything spectacular though, up to 20 points assuming you work really hard at it) but that max potential more or less remains fixed. Now since we are all in the same boat and most people realize instinctively that they need to stay sharp and if not ahead of the curve at least with the curve, this essentially means that we all tend to improve across time(some more some less). The bottom line is however making dramatic improvements in IQ(more than 20 points) is next to impossible while that potential ceiling so to speak is different for everyone.
Back to high IQ societies, there is no doubt in my mind that these people are a cut above the rest in terms of potential, if anything they proved themselves with their test results and possibly their grades in school and university. That is undeniable while it would be silly to assume that their selection process is arbitrary or that a person with an average to moderately high IQ(say 120) has any chance of getting into one of these
clubs. Having said that this says nothing about their other qualities as human beings and we all know that there is much more to being a valued member of society. One thing is for sure though. Take a member of Mensa and a person with an average IQ and put them through an intensive University program(say Physics) the Mensa member will likely breeze through it while the average Joe will struggle possibly even not finish. Similarly if you would take Usain Bolt as a youngster and a random guy and put them through intensive 100m training. Which of the two do you think will become world champion? I think you and I both know the answer to that. So I think you need a real wake up call and stop effing around with caricaturising and misinterpreting the positions of people that subscribe to the notion of IQ. You and I both know these people aren’t stupid and none that I have spoken to thus far(actual high IQ individuals and none of these posers) lack the sophistication and grasp of nuance to accept valid points of contention.
“The bottom line is however making dramatic improvements in IQ(more than 20 points) is next to impossible while that potential ceiling so to speak is different for everyone.”
What’s the difference between IQ 120 and 100?
“if anything they proved themselves with their test results and possibly their grades in school and university”
You know these tests are constructed with the idea in the constructors’ head already right? I recommend reading The Testing Trap by Strenio. Eg:
“We consciously and deliberately select questions so that the kind of people who scored low on the pretest will score low on subsequent tests. We do the same for middle or high scorers. We are imposing our will on the outcome.”
“Similarly if you would take Usain Bolt as a youngster and a random guy and put them through intensive 100m training. Which of the two do you think will become world champion? I think you and I both know the answer to that.”
Athleticism is different. Far, far different. I’ve written about Bolt and how and why he is so good. Systems views > reductionist views. Bolt wad the fastest kid in his school at age 12, by the way.
“So I think you need a real wake up call and stop effing around with caricaturising and misinterpreting the positions of people that subscribe to the notion of IQ. You and I both know these people aren’t stupid and none that I have spoken to thus far(actual high IQ individuals and none of these posers) lack the sophistication and grasp of nuance to accept valid points of contention.”
Did you read my article on high IQ societies or not? For instance, one of the founders of Mensa stated that he got “disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles” (quoted in Tammet, 2009: 40). These tests are test construction on steroids. Item selection/analysis is how and why the test constructors can build their will into the outcome.
pumpkinheadsaid:
RR
“What’s the difference between IQ 120 and 100?”
Fairly significant!
100 Cashier and the like
120 Electrical Engineer and the like
“You know these tests are constructed with the idea in the constructors’ head already right? I recommend reading The Testing Trap by Strenio. Eg:
“We consciously and deliberately select questions so that the kind of people who scored low on the pretest will score low on subsequent tests. We do the same for middle or high scorers. We are imposing our will on the outcome.””
What? Isn’t that exactly the entire principle behind IQ testing? Make sure the test is designed such that people consistently get the same score no matter how many times they take the test…?
“Athleticism is different. Far, far different. I’ve written about Bolt and how and why he is so good. Systems views > reductionist views. Bolt wad the fastest kid in his school at age 12, by the way.”
Well if you accept that athleticism is predicted by a number of factors, muscle type, reaction time, neural signal speed, body mechanics, etc…why then is it so difficult for you to accept that intelligence is also predicted by a number of factors in the brain too(overall and regional brain size, circuitry, mtDNA etc etc)? And if intelligence is in fact predicted by these factors then why wouldn’t the cognitive output of people vary much like 100m sprinters vary in their respective personal best times. You do know that there is almost never more than one world record holder at any one time while the further up we go in times the more sprinters you will find with the same personal best. Hmmm that does remind me of something found in IQ testing, is it the bell curve? LOL
As for Bolt, you are talking to a former high school 100m specialist(mid 10s) an avid follower of the sport and very knowledgeable person with regards to the the biology, physiology, mechanics and training involved in sprinting. So there is nothing you would have touched upon that I don’t already know many times over (assuming you actually know what you are talking about).
“Did you read my article on high IQ societies or not? For instance, one of the founders of Mensa stated that he got “disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles” (quoted in Tammet, 2009: 40). These tests are test construction on steroids. Item selection/analysis is how and why the test constructors can build their will into the outcome.”
Total nonsense, likely disgruntled members or statistically challenged people that cannot differentiate between anecdotal evidence, a one off and a statistically significant occurrence enough that it would warrant a serious investigation(very very unlikely). I think you fail to grasp the idea that high IQ people are still people like anyone else, with character flaws, psychological issues, biases, cognitive glitches, prejudices and yes at times even error prone. One could argue that due to their rarity they tend to feel very lonely at least intellectually perhaps even marginalized and undermined. People get jealous and try to fuck with your head, some even take it as a challenge to prove you are just as stupid as everyone else and a fraud(hmm remind you of someone?). Have you ever spent time with someone you want nothing more than to just be friends with, where you cross all the Ts dot all the Is socially bend over backwards even(so as to not intimidate them with your intellect) yet still somehow you sense some tension and in time notice a trend in their behavior where they are constantly trying to one up you and undermine your line of thinking instead of simply relax and enjoy your company. Yet no matter how many times you prove to them how smart and capable you are and that they should stop playing this pointless game they still come back at you with silly mind games, never seeing you as an actual friend and an equal in terms of reciprocity and consideration but rather someone they must defeat at all costs. And for what, because all too often they struggle to follow much of what you say and it all seems alien to them while they simply cannot believe that it is possible that anyone could be THAT much smarter than they are. Well its possible better start accepting it. It is hard being smart let alone leagues above everyone else. it is a lonely lonely existence(talking about 160+ IQs) not just because of the social complexities it generates but also because hardly anyone can properly understand you much of the time. So stop playing this retarded game of yours and just accept there are people that you can’t even hold a candle to intellectually and if you ever actually met someone like that and spent some time with them you would realize how much of a gap there is between the two of you. Or maybe you won’t and you will continue to make up excuses to explain away your feelings of inadequacy.
PS: Like I said a high IQ can also be a curse particularly socially, you can see things others cannot, things you would rather not have seen, especially if your brain is tuned to also pick up the negatives in life. Unless someone with such a high IQ is also socially gifted(very high social intelligence but also intrapersonal intelligence to handle all the shit that is likely to come their way) which as PP has noted many times is a rarity of rarities, they will likely gravitate to like minded people and some of these people will even create high IQ societies to spend their free time and rub brain cells with other gifted individuals. Cyclists do it with other cyclists, gamers do it with other gamers, dancers do it with other dancers and so on and so forth. There is nothing new here yet you seem hell bent on undermining intelligent people. Have you ever gotten a low score on an IQ test, is that why you are going on this crusade?
Rarely do you get someone that smart that they can handle both worlds seamlessly(intellectual and social, requires very high social intelligence and social agility) as these worlds are generally incompatible and this is made all the more difficult by jealous pricks who can’t handle being next to a brainier person than them.
“100 Cashier and the like
120 Electrical Engineer and the like”
So job types are the difference between them? I’m talking biologically/physiologically. 100 and 120.
“What? Isn’t that exactly the entire principle behind IQ testing? Make sure the test is designed such that people consistently get the same score no matter how many times they take the test…?”
You don’t see this as a criticism that test constructors the test to fit their presuppositions?
“Well if you accept that athleticism is predicted by a number of factors, muscle type, reaction time, neural signal speed, body mechanics, etc…why then is it so difficult for you to accept that intelligence is also predicted by a number of factors in the brain too(overall and regional brain size, circuitry, mtDNA etc etc)? And if intelligence is in fact predicted by these factors then why wouldn’t the cognitive output of people vary much like 100m sprinters vary in their respective personal best times. You do know that there is almost never more than one world record holder at any one time while the further up we go in times the more sprinters you will find with the same personal best. Hmmm that does remind me of something found in IQ testing, is it the bell curve? LOL”
Know the best way to know if someone is an athlete? Physically test them.
I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.
The bell curve is forced by the test constructors.
I have written many articles on athleticism and the anatomy and physiology behind many things. I don’t need a lesson.
“So there is nothing you would have touched upon that I don’t already know many times over (assuming you actually know what you are talking about).”
I train sprinters.
“likely disgruntled members or statistically challenged people that cannot differentiate between anecdotal evidence, a one off and a statistically significant occurrence enough that it would warrant a serious investigation(very very unlikely).”
“investigation” into what? The quote in question is from a co-founder of Mensa at the 50 year anniversary of the club, if I recall correctly.
“Have you ever spent time with someone you want nothing more than to just be friends with, where you cross all the Ts dot all the Is socially bend over backwards even(so as to not intimidate them with your intellect) yet still somehow you sense some tension and in time notice a trend in their behavior where they are constantly trying to one up you and undermine your line of thinking instead of simply relax and enjoy your company.”
Nope. I bend over backward for no one.
“And for what, because all too often they struggle to follow much of what you say and it all seems alien to them while they simply cannot believe that it is possible that anyone could be THAT much smarter than they are. Well its possible better start accepting it.”
You’re speaking gibberish, buddy.
“So stop playing this retarded game of yours and just accept there are people that you can’t even hold a candle to intellectually and if you ever actually met someone like that and spent some time with them you would realize how much of a gap there is between the two of you. Or maybe you won’t and you will continue to make up excuses to explain away your feelings of inadequacy.”
This ‘retarded game of [mine]” is a methodological critique of IQ tests. I don’t know why you’re assuming anything about my “feelings of inadequacy”, either.
“they will likely gravitate to like minded people and some of these people will even create high IQ societies to spend their free time and rub brain cells with other gifted individuals.”
Scoring high on these “exclusive tests” means your “gifted”?
“There is nothing new here yet you seem hell bent on undermining intelligent people. Have you ever gotten a low score on an IQ test, is that why you are going on this crusade?”
The “crusade” I’m on is due to what I’ve learned about IQ test construction. I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.
It seems like I triggered you.
pumpkinheadsaid:
RR
No you haven’t “triggered” me you are irritating me because your reasoning is sub par, you are using the claims of one person(this mensa member, and of all the clubs, you chose the the worst one, the 1 in 50 joint lol) along with poorly substantiated reasoning by these so called “test designers” while you still have not answered my question, what is your IQ? Until you answer my question I have enough reason to believe that your position is primarily motivated by a “sour grapes” mentality.
For someone who seems to be spending so much time trying to discredit IQ testing surely at some point you attempted to take an actual IQ test. If you haven’t then you are not to be taken seriously. So what is it, what is your IQ score? My guess is that your performance IQ is dire(no more than 105, I’ve had enough conversations with you to know your logical reasoning is very very poor and your concept formation is severely lacking) while your verbal seems to be comfortably above average which appears to be your only saving grace. So a composite of 115-120 might be in the cards for you(If I were being generous). Not enough for Mensa though hmmmm
pumpkinheadsaid:
You’re speaking gibberish, buddy.”
LOL my point exactly! You lack the cognitive sophistication to understand. As for your “critique”, I’m all for critiquing, while I am not saying that IQ testing is perfect merely that it is good enough to capture over 90% of the population especially in the 60 to 130 – 140 range. However it seems that you are basically dismissive of IQ testing, I would hardly call that a critique and if you do then we might have to downgrade your verbal IQ even more, perhaps in the 115 +- 5 range.
King meLosaid:
His IQ is 110. I don’t know what test he took though.
pumpkinheadsaid:
“So job types are the difference between them? I’m talking biologically/physiologically. 100 and 120.”
Yes job types is one way to view it much like physicists tend to be smarter than accountants and so on and so forth. Spend some time in the real world and you will start noticing trends in intelligence between job types, assuming of course you are smart enough to do this. Not talking about absolute differences(perhaps you can find some genius accountants) but on average physicists tend to be smarter than accountants.
As for the physiological differences it’s hard to tell for sure without conducting a thorough examination of an adequate sample size of 100 vs 120 IQ people but in all likelihood we would be talking about overall brain size(the bigger the better), perhaps even size differences in particular brain regions, neural connectivity and organization(particularly the default network), level of myelination, mtDNA, and white vs grey brain cell ratios to name the most likely candidates(though there are probably more).
“Know the best way to know if someone is an athlete? Physically test them.”
Right, and that is why we have IQ tests in order to test intelligence, how hard is this to understand. Beyond physically testing, genetic testing of athletes has revealed several genes that are correlated with high performance among power athletes. There is no reason to believe that the same won’t be true for intelligence and in fact over 50 such genes have been discovered already. The last piece to the puzzle would then be to connect these genes with a physiological characteristic.
“The “crusade” I’m on is due to what I’ve learned about IQ test construction. I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
Well then you would be wrong for multiple reasons. First of all not all IQ tests were created equal, some are better than others so it depends which tests you are talking about(hopefully not these online tests). So if you are critiquing shoddy online tests and conflating them with all IQ tests even the Wechsler then I’m afraid I’m wasting my time talking to you. However even some online tests can give a rough idea and certainly differentiate between a dull person and a smart person. So in my view that IS an intelligence test though perhaps in some cases a little less accurate than others. Your flat out rejection reveals your bias but most aptly your actual lack of intelligence.
“It seems like I triggered you.”
LOL I don’t get triggered by halfwits just a little annoyed. Triggering implies losing control and failing to moderate yourself your emotions and your physiological responses to your liking. You have done no such thing to me. I am perfectly happy with my response to you.
Finally, still no IQ score….? LOL looks like I was right about you. Probably too ashamed of your score to reveal it or perhaps too scared to take one because you know you will score poorly. An honest person with integrity would admit as much, but I guess you chose a different route by attempting to discredit and undermine what you are not good at. Critiques are welcome, absolute nonsense and underhandedness is not.
“As for the physiological differences it’s hard to tell for sure without conducting a thorough examination of an adequate sample size of 100 vs 120 IQ people but in all likelihood we would be talking about overall brain size(the bigger the better), perhaps even size differences in particular brain regions, neural connectivity and organization(particularly the default network), level of myelination, mtDNA, and white vs grey brain cell ratios to name the most likely candidates(though there are probably more).”
Brain size is anatomic. Same shoddy Jensen-Rushton-like correlations and imputing them as causes—what else is new.
“Right, and that is why we have IQ tests in order to test intelligence, how hard is this to understand.”
I don’t see any justification for this assumption.
“genetic testing of athletes has revealed several genes that are correlated with high performance among power athletes.”
“There is no reason to believe that the same won’t be true for intelligence and in fact over 50 such genes have been discovered already.”
Where?
“First of all not all IQ tests were created equal, some are better than others so it depends which tests you are talking about(hopefully not these online tests). So if you are critiquing shoddy online tests and conflating them with all IQ tests even the Wechsler then I’m afraid I’m wasting my time talking to you. However even some online tests can give a rough idea and certainly differentiate between a dull person and a smart person. So in my view that IS an intelligence test though perhaps in some cases a little less accurate than others. Your flat out rejection reveals your bias but most aptly your actual lack of intelligence.”
haha what are you talking about? Why are you assuming that I’m critiquing “shoddy online tests”? My “flat out rejection reveals”…my “bias”? Does your acceptance of them “reveal your bias”?
“Finally, still no IQ score….? LOL looks like I was right about you. Probably too ashamed of your score to reveal it or perhaps too scared to take one because you know you will score poorly. An honest person with integrity would admit as much, but I guess you chose a different route by attempting to discredit and undermine what you are not good at. Critiques are welcome, absolute nonsense and underhandedness is not.”‘
Why does it matter? Melo told you what it is—it has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. What is your IQ? If it is high, then you accept it because you scored high and want to justify it.
See how that works and where it gets us? Nowhere.
When I said “You’re speaking nonsense”, I’ve never come across anyone who speaks to me in the way you’re describing—you just have unfounded assumptions.
“For someone who seems to be spending so much time trying to discredit IQ testing surely at some point you attempted to take an actual IQ test. If you haven’t then you are not to be taken seriously. So what is it, what is your IQ score? My guess is that your performance IQ is dire(no more than 105, I’ve had enough conversations with you to know your logical reasoning is very very poor and your concept formation is severely lacking) while your verbal seems to be comfortably above average which appears to be your only saving grace. So a composite of 115-120 might be in the cards for you(If I were being generous). Not enough for Mensa though hmmmm”
IQ-ists are a trip. You think I care about Mensa or any other ‘societies’? hahaha.
What you think of me and my “composite” IQ is irrelevant to the discussion.
You’re talking about my “IQ” is a joke—ask me about what I’ve accomplished in my life.
pumpkinheadsaid:
King meLo
“His IQ is 110. I don’t know what test he took though.”
Right, you probably posted your comment while i was typing up mine but in any case I pretty much thought as much though I decided to be kind and give him a few points extra. Nevertheless my position on the topic hasn’t changed, up to a 20 IQ point increase is possible(even for RR) assuming the person does everything right, good positive attitude(meaning no nonsense, absolute honesty, with yourself at least, and not wasting your time trying to prove bullshit so that you can make yourself feel better), driven, focused, good health, discipline and a lot of hard work can give the average person a nice little boost(assuming average motivation, average schooling etc etc prior to deciding to beef up their brain power). You see I feel that much like we can train our bodies to be stronger and healthier we can do the same with our minds. A lot of people don’t realize that they are not making the most out of what they got. Of course if one is already pushing their brain to the limit(typical high flying university student) then don’t expect much of an increase but in all likelihood that person is already pretty smart.
So to make my theory a little more concrete, I believe that everyone is born with a fixed potential for intelligence. This potential or intelligence ceiling is fixed and is different for everyone, however the average person is not making the most of their potential and thus under-performing in terms of IQ. Now IQ tests don’t measure this potential they simply measure your intelligence at any one time. Also note that an IQ score is not an absolute score of intelligence but rather a relative one(relative to other people, most people don’t know this), so if other people get smarter your score goes down and if other people get dumber your score increases. Of course large population wide swings like that don’t often happen while adverse or exceptionally favorable conditions take a while to impact IQ. Also some individuals stand to gain more than others which means that on an individual basis some(I stress the word some) people can realize that 20 IQ point boost but with large populations the increase is probably going to be a little more modest(around 10 points) assuming they have some serious catching up to do economically nutritionally, in terms of overall health and perhaps culturally too.
So in closing IQ tests aren’t what most people think they are and intelligence in people is a little more fluid(ie variable) than people think. So in as much as people subscribe to IQ absolutism(your IQ score is your IQ score and you’re stuck with it for life) I stand on the critiquing side however in as much as people completely dismiss IQ tests as not remotely a measure of intelligence I basically scoff at their stupidity. I believe that IQ stands on a dynamic and fluid landscape but once again don’t imagine anything too dramatic(up to 20 points is possible in some cases, most people will only see 5-10 depending on where they kick off and how much effort they put in). IQ can be viewed much like we view sprinting, the more talented performers win the race but unlike sprinting, IQ is a race we ALL participate in(whether we like it or not) not just those with talent. Our livelihood and well being depends on it, and except for lazy, indifferent, or checked out individuals everyone realizes that staying sharp is the name of the game.
“I pretty much thought as much though I decided to be kind and give him a few points extra. Nevertheless my position on the topic hasn’t changed, up to a 20 IQ point increase is possible(even for RR) assuming the person does everything right, good positive attitude(meaning no nonsense, absolute honesty, with yourself at least, and not wasting your time trying to prove bullshit so that you can make yourself feel better), driven, focused, good health, discipline and a lot of hard work can give the average person a nice little boost(assuming average motivation, average schooling etc etc prior to deciding to beef up their brain power). ”
You are so gracious to be so kind and “give [me] a few points extra.” Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the arguments I push are “to provide bullshit to make [myself] feel better”?
“I believe that everyone is born with a fixed potential for intelligence.”
Is this “fixed potential” ‘innate’?
You’ve yet to tackle with Strenio on test construction and the ultimate claim that differences in IQ are built into the test. See Terman (1916) on sex differences in IQ. He realized that men and women scores differently, while his assumption was that the two sexes should score the same. So he constructed his test in a way to make them equal. He removed and added items until he got what he wanted. This was for his Stanford-Binet test. Something similar happened with the Afrikaaners and another white cultural group in South Africa. It was noticed that there was a 15 point gap between the two white cultural groups, and so, to quell any discussion of “genetic differences” in IQ, they specifically constructed the test to eliminate the differences (see Hilliard, 2012, Straightening the Bell Curve).
This is outright evidence that score differences are due to the test constructors’presuppositions on who is or is not ‘intelligent.’
pumpkinheadsaid:
RR
“Brain size is anatomic. Same shoddy Jensen-Rushton-like correlations and imputing them as causes—what else is new.”
You really are a stubborn fool. A larger brain means more neurons, you know, the cells in our brains responsible for processing information, making computations, and finding solutions? It stands to reason that a larger brain(all else equal, ie same connectivity mtDNA etc) means more computational power and greater ability to store information. Much like a larger muscle usually means greater force produced, a larger engine means more horsepower, a larger hard disk means more storage capacity and a larger processor means more processing power in a PC. This is biology/physics/reality 101.
Want to now how I know that I am talking to an idiot? Well it has a strong correlation with how much I’m having to explain(especially if I have to talk about obvious stuff).
“I don’t see any justification for this assumption.”
That’s because you aren’t very bright. That or you are trying to dismiss away your inadequacy which would make you an idiot AND a charlatan.
“haha what are you talking about? Why are you assuming that I’m critiquing “shoddy online tests”?”
Then which tests are you critiquing and what in your opinion are there flaws which disqualify them from being intelligence tests. Is such a thing as an IQ test possible in your mind and why? Do you think people have inherent differences in intelligence or are you fully subscribed to the blank slate theory(in other words geniuses are made)?
” My “flat out rejection reveals”…my “bias”? Does your acceptance of them “reveal your bias”?”
Actually I do have some criticisms but on the whole I accept them or to be more precise I accept some of them about 90%(for the more professional tests). Bottom line is however that you have much more to lose by accepting them than I have by rejecting them. I scored very high but even if I reject them it would not impact my life one iota, so I have no real vested interest in accepting them and if anything I might be making my social life more difficult by accepting them since it is pretty much taboo to announce your IQ. I very very rarely do and only if I’m pressed by someone I trust. I think I did once here but this site is different as it is anonymous and well it is a site in part dedicated to IQ after all. So outside of some self gratification there is really no gain in being an IQ test proponent.
On the flip side if you accept them you have to figure out how to deal with your mediocrity and if you’re a particularly proud person this can be a huge blow to your ego(all evidence points towards you having a pretty big ego). So a savvy betting man would probably put the odds at 80/20, that is 80% chance that you were biased and 20% chance that I was the biased one and that is before this person even began to examine the actual science.
Yet there is still that 20% chance that you might not be biased, well that’s where this site comes in where anyone can go through your comments post by post where it is blatantly obvious your argumentation is poor, your intelligence is questionable and you pretty much give the game away within a few sentences of discussing this topic.
“I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
If by this you mean that you think the correlation of IQ tests and intelligence is zero then you my friend are a moron. ALL tests are correlated to intelligence to some degree or other. That is if we could magically know people’s inherent intelligence and tested 100 of them with a random test we would most likely find that the average IQ of the top 50 scorers was higher than the average IQ of the bottom 50 scorers on this test. This is truer(ie more highly correlated) for some tests than others until we finally get to IQ tests where it is as true as it gets(given the current state of intelligence testing).
“You really are a stubborn fool. A larger brain means more neurons, you know, the cells in our brains responsible for processing information, making computations, and finding solutions? It stands to reason that a larger brain(all else equal, ie same connectivity mtDNA etc) means more computational power and greater ability to store information. Much like a larger muscle usually means greater force produced, a larger engine means more horsepower, a larger hard disk means more storage capacity and a larger processor means more processing power in a PC.”
Are correlations causes?
“Want to now how I know that I am talking to an idiot? Well it has a strong correlation with how much I’m having to explain(especially if I have to talk about obvious stuff).”
“Never ask anyone to elaborate.”
“That’s because you aren’t very bright. That or you are trying to dismiss away your inadequacy which would make you an idiot AND a charlatan.”
On what grounds is this justified?
“Do you think people have inherent differences in intelligence or are you fully subscribed to the blank slate theory(in other words geniuses are made)?”
Are you framing this as nature vs nurture?
“I have by rejecting them. I scored very high but even if I reject them it would not impact my life one iota, so I have no real vested interest in accepting them and if anything I might be making my social life more difficult by accepting them since it is pretty much taboo to announce your IQ. I very very rarely do and only if I’m pressed by someone I trust. I think I did once here but this site is different as it is anonymous and well it is a site in part dedicated to IQ after all. So outside of some self gratification there is really no gain in being an IQ test proponent.
On the flip side if you accept them you have to figure out how to deal with your mediocrity and if you’re a particularly proud person this can be a huge blow to your ego(all evidence points towards you having a pretty big ego). So a savvy betting man would probably put the odds at 80/20, that is 80% chance that you were biased and 20% chance that I was the biased one and that is before this person even began to examine the actual science.”
Who just announces their IQ as if it has any bearing on the real world? My IQ is irrelevant to the arguments that I provide.
“anyone can go through your comments post by post where it is blatantly obvious your argumentation is poor, your intelligence is questionable and you pretty much give the game away within a few sentences of discussing this topic.”
What “game” did I “give away”? Quote me.
“If by this you mean that you think the correlation of IQ tests and intelligence is zero then you my friend are a moron. ALL tests are correlated to intelligence to some degree or other. That is if we could magically know people’s inherent intelligence and tested 100 of them with a random test we would most likely find that the average IQ of the top 50 scorers was higher than the average IQ of the bottom 50 scorers on this test. This is truer(ie more highly correlated) for some tests than others until we finally get to IQ tests where it is as true as it gets(given the current state of intelligence testing).”
Yea, ignore what I wrote on South Africa and IQ and sex differences in IQ and test construction.
pumpkinheadsaid:
“You are so gracious to be so kind and “give [me] a few points extra.” ”
Well you’re welcome! Mind you by “give” I don’t mean that I imparted IQ points to you, you earned your points fair and square, all 110 of them. No, I was being kind and evaluating you higher than I thought you actually were. No joke, I was thinking 105 performance and 115 verbal, whatever composite that produces. Though maybe 120 is still in the cards for you if only you would stop warping your mind with all this nonsense, getting into discussions like these and taking massive blows to your ego and confidence.
“Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the arguments I push are “to provide bullshit to make [myself] feel better”?”
Primarily this sentence and every other time you alluded to this position of yours:
“I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
Only an idiot would say something as extreme as that or possibly someone who is invested in undermining the validity of IQ tests.
But alas I don’t think you’re an idiot idiot despite my harsh language at times. I think your IQ result is pretty accurate actually…no your problem stems from your enormous ego and pride. Which essentially only leaves us with the other option, you’re trying to pull a fast one on everyone but most importantly yourself. Its sad really.
“Is this “fixed potential” ‘innate’?”
Yes but more importantly it is fixed meaning that it is absolute and short of tinkering with your genes it is impossible to change.
“You’ve yet to tackle with Strenio on test construction and the ultimate claim that differences in IQ are built into the test. See Terman (1916) on sex differences in IQ. He realized that men and women scores differently, while his assumption was that the two sexes should score the same. So he constructed his test in a way to make them equal. He removed and added items until he got what he wanted. This was for his Stanford-Binet test. Something similar happened with the Afrikaaners and another white cultural group in South Africa. It was noticed that there was a 15 point gap between the two white cultural groups, and so, to quell any discussion of “genetic differences” in IQ, they specifically constructed the test to eliminate the differences (see Hilliard, 2012, Straightening the Bell Curve).”
So in your view one test designer tinkering with his test in order to remove a few points(no more than 5) in order to balance the sexes in 1916 is reason enough to completely dismiss IQ tests all together and proclaim that IQ tests “are not tests of intelligence”(implying zero correlation of IQ tests and intelligence)? My first instinct right now was to come at you with a massive put down but I realize that none of it has yet to wake you up. So I’ll try a different tactic…
hahahahahahahahahahahaha….
hahahahahahahhahahahahah….
hahahahahahahahahhahaha….
Seriously dude you are a gluton for punishment.
That means absolutely nothing. So lets say that he managed to skew his test 5% in favor of women, this would hardly impact the correlation of IQ to intelligence. So if before his correlation was 0.95 it would now be 0.9 or something, still very very high.
As for the Afrikaaners vs English whites this seems somewhat anecdotal. What I do find interesting is the race and sex of the author. Is this another case of “sour grapes”? I mean she could be trying to undermine IQ tests because they cast her race in a bad light. Not saying this is the case with her(have not examined her circumstances enough, unlike with you), just a thought. Btw are you of African descent?
In any case I have not looked into this enough while I cannot find a full online print of her book to read the relevant sections nor am I interested in purchasing what appears to be verging on propaganda so I’ll just leave it at that(perhaps look into the matter in time). But even if I were to grant you that this is thoroughly factual, we are now looking at a 15% skew so from a 0.95 correlation it drops down to 0.7 or something like that. THAT IS STILL VERY HIGH, AND HARDY WARRANTS THE STATEMENT “I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.” Wake up dude!!!!
pumpkinheadsaid:
“Are correlations causes?”
First of all you framed your question as would a mentally challenged person akin to ‘is an apple an orange’.
Secondly the common saying is “correlation does not equal causation” problem is that is flat out wrong, and is simply used by university professors to deprogram 1st year students. The correct way to phrase it is ” correlation does not necessarily imply a causal link” or “correlation is not always due to causation”. If you haven’t caught on by now, YES correlation very often IS due to causation, you bleeding retard. This is one of those times.
“Never ask anyone to elaborate.”
What?
“On what grounds is this justified?”
On the grounds that you are tragically wrong in your position and so this leaves us with only a couple of explanations.
“Are you framing this as nature vs nurture?”
Yes, what is your position on this? Nature, nurture or a bit of both and if so how much?
“Who just announces their IQ”
Perhaps “reveal” might be a better word to use there. But in any case if one is heavily invested in the IQ debate in favor of IQ tests and also has a high IQ then their IQ would often come up in conversation/discussion and so this can amount to a kind of “announcement”, but no reveal is what I meant to say.
Anime, I used to compete in math tournaments as a kid and would usually win county. I won multiple school-wide competitions. And on top of that, I placed for in county for digit deal. This meant that I won fourth place in one competition out of maybe twenty competitions, making a total of eighty kids who competed at that tournament placing equal or better than me.
This county is located in Southern California btw, so it’s populated by at least a dozen thousand kids, maybe more.
Honor culture not only breeds the most important survival mechanism known to humanity, testosterone, but also a free-for-all of greatness.
I’ve always said to my Jewish friends if they knew of the fact that if society was lawless and faithful, faithful and lawful, or lawful and faithless. Seems like it’s gotta be one of those three. The fourth is lawless and faithless. That would be the pinnacle of doom for humanity.
You are disgusting. This is complete thrash. How can you say you are some sort of genius and like watching shit like this? Its completely contradictory.
Its not. Those people embody who I truly am, want to be, and already have been.
I want to become a killer with a killer mindset and these people are the purest forms of just that, a remorseless person who is willing to do anything to win at life.
I have no bone to pick with you, it shouldn’t end up being the reverse either. I’m just in a dark place atm but I’ll get out of it. maybe not in this life…but ill get out of it.
Digit deal is a game where you’re given like four numbers and have to use either multiplication, division, addition or subtraction to successfully get those numbers to equal zero. It’s a really neat game and I excelled at it. Was the only kid that year to successfully get a zero on one equation.
I think it might’ve actually been six….six numbers. Imagine that. Being given six random digits and trying to reach a target of zero using only the basic mathematical properties. Shit’s hard.
Impulsiveness is the greatest threat to socially normal behavior because social behavior is an instinct; a complex one, but an instinct nonetheless. Instincts are unconscious and always objective. There’s an objectivity to interpreting to and reacting correctly to social situations, it just takes time to think things through and usually people don’t have the access to and/or time-management skills to actually make the right decision.
All events in this Universe have direct consequences and indirect consequences. The indirect consequences lead to butterfly-effect like occurrences to happen. This is a great explanation for how social interactions can and are objective because if a social interaction does not go the way it’s supposed to, then destiny fails to prevail.
This is my interpretation of how reality works: basically, an entity like the Universe runs on order and structure and accurate mechanisms that allow it to sustain itself. However, when chaos is brought into the picture, we see that one chaotic event seems to proliferate even more chaos. If one chaotic event occurs, we see that it keeps compounding on itself and causing more and more chaos to occur.
Social interactions are greatly analogous to this. If you make a mistake in a social interaction (I believe all social interactions can be perfected by a system in which innate forces cause an interaction to occur in a systematic cause-and-effect relationship), the rest of the social interaction will continue to compound the number of mistakes happening.
This is why I believe all interactions in the Universe, especially interpersonal interactions, are linked between each other. Chaos proliferates itself and causes other social interactions to go incorrectly. It’s like a spider-web of interactions and actions and everything happening simultaneously. Time can also be explained by this, if you think enough about it.
According to this website, a chess player’s ELO rating is IQ times ten and then an additional thousand points. If this is an accurate way of attaining someone’s ELO score, then yes, working backwards, we would arrive at the conclusion that people with IQs of 180+ exist in the chess world.
Apparently, though, Garry Kasparov’s IQ should be a 180+ too but when tested, he scored a 135, so it’s hard to say if chess can be an accurate way of measuring intelligence and could indeed bolster my argument that there’s no biological way of attaining a score higher than 160.
No chess is correlated at only 0.33 with IQ meaning intelligence is only 10% of success. Why ? Because at same level of knowledge, highest IQ always win. But we re never at same level of knowledge.
Best players haves memorized more than 300k configurations. It’s like recognizing face. If you memorize it, it’s easier than inducing who is the person in front of you.
Rote memory learning is the mental faculty that has the lowest correlation with intelligence : 0.1. Less than 1%.
So average chess player who has an elo ranking is 110 because you need brain to like the game. But then top 200 players out of 3 millions, instead of adding 60 IQ points, will add 0.3 * 60 = 18, or 128, meaning just gifted. For the 9 best players average, you would add 0.3 * 70 = 21 to 110 = 131. The best player being at 135 is on average perfectly normal. You don’t have that much intelligent people who want to spend 5 hours a day during at least 15 years rote learning positions ….
That’s why the absence of women speaks more about their character than their IQ. And there is also an advantage in being trained because even if you want to learn, you need access to the knowledge. That would explain 50% of former Jewish dominance, the other 50% being having half of their people at or above 110 instead of 25% like whites
Brunosaid:
For Jewish people over representation not in Elo ranking (4%) but among if best grand masters (60%) instead of 1%, IQ would explain at the 130 level, a four times increase, and industriousness and access to knowledge (group help), the rest *15 times, meaning IQ was less than 20% and social environement 80%.
Chess showed Jewish being much more ambitious, competitive and obsessional and willing to train ans help each other than anything else …
The Philosophersaid:
This is something puppy will like. Basically they are saying blacks don’t do well because they never got the perfect start – 2 parents, good schooling etc. Afro and Puppy like this argument.
But it hides the fact that black kids would do better if their dad stuck around!
Pete Buttigieg is a smart guy. He’s also gay which will help him with the dem elites (i.e. wall street jews). I wonder what he stance on Palestinians is.
Puppy why do you never mention Bill Gates wife. I thought you said women deserve more recognition. Shouldn’t you claim that gates would not be successful without his wife.
I wonder if the africa worship is her idea and bill who is socially inept just went along to make her happy.
And then they shot a movie about Bill Gates new life on the plantation growing corn for Oprah to eat and tobacco for her to chew. Oprah would walk around in a cowboy hat and jeans and keep saying “Yessum. Imm Hmmm” and spit out tobacco now and again while gates worked in the searing heat with cracked glasses and a dirty pink jumper.
Then Oprah would get nasty if Gates slacked off or took a break and there would be a graphic scene where Oprah stripped Melinda Gates and started whipping her while saying the phrase “How you like straight ha-ayah (hair) now white girl, Imm Hmm”.
Being a troll requires a heap of creativity, intelligence, and other resourceful traits. So I don’t know if it’s necessarily the worst thing to be from a cognitive perspective.
And can someone define what a troll exactly is? Because I’ve been called one countless times and harassed relentlessly by people because of it.
I know some of their attributes as listed above, but would like a better picture of what defines a troll.
I’m the most well-spoken guy I know. Most people are too technical when deriving answers to scientific questions but I stay poised and ready to tackle the problem with the same objectivity I would any other, thus making me the most articulate person on this blog by far.
The rest of you sound like you have an incurable case of schizotypal mixed with borderline.
Pumpkin Person 
PH, PP, G-man, and whoever else thinks IQ can possibly exist above a 160, wouldn’t we see the most brilliant people above that IQ threshold actually accomplishing something? I mean, if we look at the population statistics and standard deviations and everything, we’d find that people with an IQ above 160 should be fairly common or common enough to actually have an impact on society. Unless an IQ that extremely high is just so maladaptive for society and for the individual that it counteracts any productivity that may have come from being that gifted.
Anyways, point is, 160+ can’t be verified because there are no people who actually contribute anything from that sphere of intelligence, or supposed intelligence. It’s all just testing-ability above a certain threshold. Not only that but we fail to see them in any field of influence except maybe mathematics, physics, etc.
So maybe…maybe…visual and mathematical intelligence can be characterized as reaching the upper limits all the way up to 200 but verbal, logical, etc. are restricted to some score lower, maybe 150 verbal, 160 logical, etc.
What is so hard to understand???
Lets say that you live in a small country of one million people. Now lets say we devise a very sophisticated IQ test that can test all the way up to 200. This is very hard to do with any certifiable accuracy but lets assume we have managed it(in theory it is possible). Now we give this test to everyone in this country. By virtue of the test’s high ceiling no one would get a perfect score but a few might score very high. So what do we do, we rank order the scores in terms of rarity. For example we work out the average score and set that at an IQ of 100. We then get the absolute top scorer and assume this person has a level of intelligence that makes him/her smarter than a million people. Well based on this chart,
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
this would give that person an IQ of about 171 given that he is 1 in a million people(assuming we use 15 points per standard deviation). It really is as simple as that. In order for what you are saying to be true roughly 33 people would have to get an identical top score but if we had done our job right with designing the test this would be nearly impossible since no one could possibly get full marks. Simply put reality just does’t work that way, the higher up we go in difficulty the fewer people we find until eventually you would be hard pressed to find 1 or 2 people at the very top.
If you are not convinced yet then I urge you to take a look at chess rankings and the respective ELO scores. Most chess professionals cluster around a certain figure and then as we move up in ELO you will find fewer and fewer people with the same score(or within a few points) until you reach the very top where the first and second players are separated by 50 points while from first to tenth there is a spread of 100 points. Go to the average part of the rankings and you will find thousands of players within a 100 point spread. It really is as simple as that. As long as the pool of people you are testing is greater than 32,000 people then an IQ of over 160 is inevitable. Well the earth has billions, so 160 would be considered dull by a select lucky few people out there or roughly 0.000001% of the population.
I don’t doubt the statistical reasoning, just have a hard time believing that people with an IQ of 160 actually exist in regards to actual intelligence and not just test construction. I mean, it’s theoretical but you have to put a limit on how intelligent an individual of human society actually is. If you can give me the max ELO score and then tell me how many SDs it is away from the mean, I can get a good grasp on how IQ would be maximized in the human population.
I question IQs above 160–not because I think it’s biologically impossible, and not because I think actual IQ (g) is less meaningful above a certain range, but I think a lot of people that high are just expert test-takers–people with IQs around 150 who are obsessed with problem-solving or are obsessed with IQ for some reason. And also a lot of charlatans like to give out IQ scores in the 160+ range.
But I don’t think anything you said contradicts what Pumpkin and other IQ researchers have told us about IQ. Even in highly competitive fields, like astrophysics, most of the performers are going to be in the 130s to low 140s range. Assuming a normal distribution in both IQ and performance, there’s just not that many people with genius range IQs even in really competitive spaces. But in fields where actual performance is highly non-normal, like wealth and income, surely enough we see the highest performers go above the low-140s–Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs are all well over 150 (According to PP Mr. Gates may be as high as 170!!!)
GondwanaMan, LOADED
Well, the US statistically speaking has roughly 10,000 people with an IQ above 160. You are right, that is not a lot of people at all, considering that these people will tend to fill up the ranks in the top positions in most fields but particularly STEM(since IQ tests tend to be modeled around the type of reasoning most commonly implemented in STEM fields). Some of those people might go into business, some might even become teachers and perhaps a few might end up doing nothing of note with their lives. However keep in mind that an IQ that high is beyond anything any one of us could possibly fathom, so these people have the cognitive tools to do something truly game changing in their lifetime. The odds of running into someone that smart in your life are very very low unless you hang out at high IQ societies. Also do note that even an IQ in the 140s or 150s is nothing to scoff at and people with such IQ’s IMO make up the bulk of the worlds preeminent intellectuals/scientists.
Slight correction: The actual figure of the 160+ IQ population in the US is likely higher than 10k, perhaps even double that figure due to the excellent tertiary education in the US and career opportunities that are second to none in the world, which has essentially attracted some of the brightest people in the world for the last 100 years.
If you ever want to get a sense of how truly smart someone with such an IQ is I would suggest playing chess. Then trying to play someone with an elo of 2000+ then if you have time try watching some high profile games(Carlsen, Kasparov etc) and then realize that these people are in a league of their own and have a chess IQ of 180+(5.33+ SD above average). Now if you think that you can take these people on or even come close to what they can do then maybe we should start rethinking the possibility of a 160+ IQ. However trust me you can’t, no one can, these people were singled out from a young age for their exceptional gift and at the moment there is very little reason to believe that there is anyone on the planet with even the cognitive potential to be able to beat Magnus Carlsen at chess and so with regards to chess he is truly 1 in 7.5 billion. Of course chess and IQ aren’t fully correlated but this to show that much like chess IQ can be viewed from that perspective and there likely exists a person out there with the highest IQ on the planet that is simply unmatched and it may not even be any one of the usual suspects, it might just be some guy sitting in some quiet corner office somewhere, hopefully trying to figure out the next breakthrough in physics or something like that.
“not because I think it’s biologically impossible,”
IQ-ists are something else.
What does this mean?
“your life are very very low unless you hang out at high IQ societies”
These “societies” are jokes.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/08/18/high-iq-societies/
RR
Sour grapes?
What do you mean by IQ-ists? Do you not believe that people are born with varying degrees of intelligence or should I say varying degrees of potential. I am not an IQ absolutist but I do believe that we are born with a certain maximum potential for cognitive output(most never reach this potential). So our cognitive output can increase across time(don’t imagine anything spectacular though, up to 20 points assuming you work really hard at it) but that max potential more or less remains fixed. Now since we are all in the same boat and most people realize instinctively that they need to stay sharp and if not ahead of the curve at least with the curve, this essentially means that we all tend to improve across time(some more some less). The bottom line is however making dramatic improvements in IQ(more than 20 points) is next to impossible while that potential ceiling so to speak is different for everyone.
Back to high IQ societies, there is no doubt in my mind that these people are a cut above the rest in terms of potential, if anything they proved themselves with their test results and possibly their grades in school and university. That is undeniable while it would be silly to assume that their selection process is arbitrary or that a person with an average to moderately high IQ(say 120) has any chance of getting into one of these
clubs. Having said that this says nothing about their other qualities as human beings and we all know that there is much more to being a valued member of society. One thing is for sure though. Take a member of Mensa and a person with an average IQ and put them through an intensive University program(say Physics) the Mensa member will likely breeze through it while the average Joe will struggle possibly even not finish. Similarly if you would take Usain Bolt as a youngster and a random guy and put them through intensive 100m training. Which of the two do you think will become world champion? I think you and I both know the answer to that. So I think you need a real wake up call and stop effing around with caricaturising and misinterpreting the positions of people that subscribe to the notion of IQ. You and I both know these people aren’t stupid and none that I have spoken to thus far(actual high IQ individuals and none of these posers) lack the sophistication and grasp of nuance to accept valid points of contention.
“The bottom line is however making dramatic improvements in IQ(more than 20 points) is next to impossible while that potential ceiling so to speak is different for everyone.”
What’s the difference between IQ 120 and 100?
“if anything they proved themselves with their test results and possibly their grades in school and university”
You know these tests are constructed with the idea in the constructors’ head already right? I recommend reading The Testing Trap by Strenio. Eg:
“We consciously and deliberately select questions so that the kind of people who scored low on the pretest will score low on subsequent tests. We do the same for middle or high scorers. We are imposing our will on the outcome.”
“Similarly if you would take Usain Bolt as a youngster and a random guy and put them through intensive 100m training. Which of the two do you think will become world champion? I think you and I both know the answer to that.”
Athleticism is different. Far, far different. I’ve written about Bolt and how and why he is so good. Systems views > reductionist views. Bolt wad the fastest kid in his school at age 12, by the way.
“So I think you need a real wake up call and stop effing around with caricaturising and misinterpreting the positions of people that subscribe to the notion of IQ. You and I both know these people aren’t stupid and none that I have spoken to thus far(actual high IQ individuals and none of these posers) lack the sophistication and grasp of nuance to accept valid points of contention.”
Did you read my article on high IQ societies or not? For instance, one of the founders of Mensa stated that he got “disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles” (quoted in Tammet, 2009: 40). These tests are test construction on steroids. Item selection/analysis is how and why the test constructors can build their will into the outcome.
RR
“What’s the difference between IQ 120 and 100?”
Fairly significant!
100 Cashier and the like
120 Electrical Engineer and the like
“You know these tests are constructed with the idea in the constructors’ head already right? I recommend reading The Testing Trap by Strenio. Eg:
“We consciously and deliberately select questions so that the kind of people who scored low on the pretest will score low on subsequent tests. We do the same for middle or high scorers. We are imposing our will on the outcome.””
What? Isn’t that exactly the entire principle behind IQ testing? Make sure the test is designed such that people consistently get the same score no matter how many times they take the test…?
“Athleticism is different. Far, far different. I’ve written about Bolt and how and why he is so good. Systems views > reductionist views. Bolt wad the fastest kid in his school at age 12, by the way.”
Well if you accept that athleticism is predicted by a number of factors, muscle type, reaction time, neural signal speed, body mechanics, etc…why then is it so difficult for you to accept that intelligence is also predicted by a number of factors in the brain too(overall and regional brain size, circuitry, mtDNA etc etc)? And if intelligence is in fact predicted by these factors then why wouldn’t the cognitive output of people vary much like 100m sprinters vary in their respective personal best times. You do know that there is almost never more than one world record holder at any one time while the further up we go in times the more sprinters you will find with the same personal best. Hmmm that does remind me of something found in IQ testing, is it the bell curve? LOL
As for Bolt, you are talking to a former high school 100m specialist(mid 10s) an avid follower of the sport and very knowledgeable person with regards to the the biology, physiology, mechanics and training involved in sprinting. So there is nothing you would have touched upon that I don’t already know many times over (assuming you actually know what you are talking about).
“Did you read my article on high IQ societies or not? For instance, one of the founders of Mensa stated that he got “disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles” (quoted in Tammet, 2009: 40). These tests are test construction on steroids. Item selection/analysis is how and why the test constructors can build their will into the outcome.”
Total nonsense, likely disgruntled members or statistically challenged people that cannot differentiate between anecdotal evidence, a one off and a statistically significant occurrence enough that it would warrant a serious investigation(very very unlikely). I think you fail to grasp the idea that high IQ people are still people like anyone else, with character flaws, psychological issues, biases, cognitive glitches, prejudices and yes at times even error prone. One could argue that due to their rarity they tend to feel very lonely at least intellectually perhaps even marginalized and undermined. People get jealous and try to fuck with your head, some even take it as a challenge to prove you are just as stupid as everyone else and a fraud(hmm remind you of someone?). Have you ever spent time with someone you want nothing more than to just be friends with, where you cross all the Ts dot all the Is socially bend over backwards even(so as to not intimidate them with your intellect) yet still somehow you sense some tension and in time notice a trend in their behavior where they are constantly trying to one up you and undermine your line of thinking instead of simply relax and enjoy your company. Yet no matter how many times you prove to them how smart and capable you are and that they should stop playing this pointless game they still come back at you with silly mind games, never seeing you as an actual friend and an equal in terms of reciprocity and consideration but rather someone they must defeat at all costs. And for what, because all too often they struggle to follow much of what you say and it all seems alien to them while they simply cannot believe that it is possible that anyone could be THAT much smarter than they are. Well its possible better start accepting it. It is hard being smart let alone leagues above everyone else. it is a lonely lonely existence(talking about 160+ IQs) not just because of the social complexities it generates but also because hardly anyone can properly understand you much of the time. So stop playing this retarded game of yours and just accept there are people that you can’t even hold a candle to intellectually and if you ever actually met someone like that and spent some time with them you would realize how much of a gap there is between the two of you. Or maybe you won’t and you will continue to make up excuses to explain away your feelings of inadequacy.
PS: Like I said a high IQ can also be a curse particularly socially, you can see things others cannot, things you would rather not have seen, especially if your brain is tuned to also pick up the negatives in life. Unless someone with such a high IQ is also socially gifted(very high social intelligence but also intrapersonal intelligence to handle all the shit that is likely to come their way) which as PP has noted many times is a rarity of rarities, they will likely gravitate to like minded people and some of these people will even create high IQ societies to spend their free time and rub brain cells with other gifted individuals. Cyclists do it with other cyclists, gamers do it with other gamers, dancers do it with other dancers and so on and so forth. There is nothing new here yet you seem hell bent on undermining intelligent people. Have you ever gotten a low score on an IQ test, is that why you are going on this crusade?
Rarely do you get someone that smart that they can handle both worlds seamlessly(intellectual and social, requires very high social intelligence and social agility) as these worlds are generally incompatible and this is made all the more difficult by jealous pricks who can’t handle being next to a brainier person than them.
“100 Cashier and the like
120 Electrical Engineer and the like”
So job types are the difference between them? I’m talking biologically/physiologically. 100 and 120.
“What? Isn’t that exactly the entire principle behind IQ testing? Make sure the test is designed such that people consistently get the same score no matter how many times they take the test…?”
You don’t see this as a criticism that test constructors the test to fit their presuppositions?
“Well if you accept that athleticism is predicted by a number of factors, muscle type, reaction time, neural signal speed, body mechanics, etc…why then is it so difficult for you to accept that intelligence is also predicted by a number of factors in the brain too(overall and regional brain size, circuitry, mtDNA etc etc)? And if intelligence is in fact predicted by these factors then why wouldn’t the cognitive output of people vary much like 100m sprinters vary in their respective personal best times. You do know that there is almost never more than one world record holder at any one time while the further up we go in times the more sprinters you will find with the same personal best. Hmmm that does remind me of something found in IQ testing, is it the bell curve? LOL”
Know the best way to know if someone is an athlete? Physically test them.
I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.
The bell curve is forced by the test constructors.
I have written many articles on athleticism and the anatomy and physiology behind many things. I don’t need a lesson.
“So there is nothing you would have touched upon that I don’t already know many times over (assuming you actually know what you are talking about).”
I train sprinters.
“likely disgruntled members or statistically challenged people that cannot differentiate between anecdotal evidence, a one off and a statistically significant occurrence enough that it would warrant a serious investigation(very very unlikely).”
“investigation” into what? The quote in question is from a co-founder of Mensa at the 50 year anniversary of the club, if I recall correctly.
“Have you ever spent time with someone you want nothing more than to just be friends with, where you cross all the Ts dot all the Is socially bend over backwards even(so as to not intimidate them with your intellect) yet still somehow you sense some tension and in time notice a trend in their behavior where they are constantly trying to one up you and undermine your line of thinking instead of simply relax and enjoy your company.”
Nope. I bend over backward for no one.
“And for what, because all too often they struggle to follow much of what you say and it all seems alien to them while they simply cannot believe that it is possible that anyone could be THAT much smarter than they are. Well its possible better start accepting it.”
You’re speaking gibberish, buddy.
“So stop playing this retarded game of yours and just accept there are people that you can’t even hold a candle to intellectually and if you ever actually met someone like that and spent some time with them you would realize how much of a gap there is between the two of you. Or maybe you won’t and you will continue to make up excuses to explain away your feelings of inadequacy.”
This ‘retarded game of [mine]” is a methodological critique of IQ tests. I don’t know why you’re assuming anything about my “feelings of inadequacy”, either.
“they will likely gravitate to like minded people and some of these people will even create high IQ societies to spend their free time and rub brain cells with other gifted individuals.”
Scoring high on these “exclusive tests” means your “gifted”?
“There is nothing new here yet you seem hell bent on undermining intelligent people. Have you ever gotten a low score on an IQ test, is that why you are going on this crusade?”
The “crusade” I’m on is due to what I’ve learned about IQ test construction. I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.
It seems like I triggered you.
RR
No you haven’t “triggered” me you are irritating me because your reasoning is sub par, you are using the claims of one person(this mensa member, and of all the clubs, you chose the the worst one, the 1 in 50 joint lol) along with poorly substantiated reasoning by these so called “test designers” while you still have not answered my question, what is your IQ? Until you answer my question I have enough reason to believe that your position is primarily motivated by a “sour grapes” mentality.
For someone who seems to be spending so much time trying to discredit IQ testing surely at some point you attempted to take an actual IQ test. If you haven’t then you are not to be taken seriously. So what is it, what is your IQ score? My guess is that your performance IQ is dire(no more than 105, I’ve had enough conversations with you to know your logical reasoning is very very poor and your concept formation is severely lacking) while your verbal seems to be comfortably above average which appears to be your only saving grace. So a composite of 115-120 might be in the cards for you(If I were being generous). Not enough for Mensa though hmmmm
You’re speaking gibberish, buddy.”
LOL my point exactly! You lack the cognitive sophistication to understand. As for your “critique”, I’m all for critiquing, while I am not saying that IQ testing is perfect merely that it is good enough to capture over 90% of the population especially in the 60 to 130 – 140 range. However it seems that you are basically dismissive of IQ testing, I would hardly call that a critique and if you do then we might have to downgrade your verbal IQ even more, perhaps in the 115 +- 5 range.
His IQ is 110. I don’t know what test he took though.
“So job types are the difference between them? I’m talking biologically/physiologically. 100 and 120.”
Yes job types is one way to view it much like physicists tend to be smarter than accountants and so on and so forth. Spend some time in the real world and you will start noticing trends in intelligence between job types, assuming of course you are smart enough to do this. Not talking about absolute differences(perhaps you can find some genius accountants) but on average physicists tend to be smarter than accountants.
As for the physiological differences it’s hard to tell for sure without conducting a thorough examination of an adequate sample size of 100 vs 120 IQ people but in all likelihood we would be talking about overall brain size(the bigger the better), perhaps even size differences in particular brain regions, neural connectivity and organization(particularly the default network), level of myelination, mtDNA, and white vs grey brain cell ratios to name the most likely candidates(though there are probably more).
“Know the best way to know if someone is an athlete? Physically test them.”
Right, and that is why we have IQ tests in order to test intelligence, how hard is this to understand. Beyond physically testing, genetic testing of athletes has revealed several genes that are correlated with high performance among power athletes. There is no reason to believe that the same won’t be true for intelligence and in fact over 50 such genes have been discovered already. The last piece to the puzzle would then be to connect these genes with a physiological characteristic.
“The “crusade” I’m on is due to what I’ve learned about IQ test construction. I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
Well then you would be wrong for multiple reasons. First of all not all IQ tests were created equal, some are better than others so it depends which tests you are talking about(hopefully not these online tests). So if you are critiquing shoddy online tests and conflating them with all IQ tests even the Wechsler then I’m afraid I’m wasting my time talking to you. However even some online tests can give a rough idea and certainly differentiate between a dull person and a smart person. So in my view that IS an intelligence test though perhaps in some cases a little less accurate than others. Your flat out rejection reveals your bias but most aptly your actual lack of intelligence.
“It seems like I triggered you.”
LOL I don’t get triggered by halfwits just a little annoyed. Triggering implies losing control and failing to moderate yourself your emotions and your physiological responses to your liking. You have done no such thing to me. I am perfectly happy with my response to you.
Finally, still no IQ score….? LOL looks like I was right about you. Probably too ashamed of your score to reveal it or perhaps too scared to take one because you know you will score poorly. An honest person with integrity would admit as much, but I guess you chose a different route by attempting to discredit and undermine what you are not good at. Critiques are welcome, absolute nonsense and underhandedness is not.
I just told you his IQ.
“As for the physiological differences it’s hard to tell for sure without conducting a thorough examination of an adequate sample size of 100 vs 120 IQ people but in all likelihood we would be talking about overall brain size(the bigger the better), perhaps even size differences in particular brain regions, neural connectivity and organization(particularly the default network), level of myelination, mtDNA, and white vs grey brain cell ratios to name the most likely candidates(though there are probably more).”
Brain size is anatomic. Same shoddy Jensen-Rushton-like correlations and imputing them as causes—what else is new.
“Right, and that is why we have IQ tests in order to test intelligence, how hard is this to understand.”
I don’t see any justification for this assumption.
“genetic testing of athletes has revealed several genes that are correlated with high performance among power athletes.”
Right—I reviewed some of the literature.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/17/genotypes-athletic-performance-and-race/
“There is no reason to believe that the same won’t be true for intelligence and in fact over 50 such genes have been discovered already.”
Where?
“First of all not all IQ tests were created equal, some are better than others so it depends which tests you are talking about(hopefully not these online tests). So if you are critiquing shoddy online tests and conflating them with all IQ tests even the Wechsler then I’m afraid I’m wasting my time talking to you. However even some online tests can give a rough idea and certainly differentiate between a dull person and a smart person. So in my view that IS an intelligence test though perhaps in some cases a little less accurate than others. Your flat out rejection reveals your bias but most aptly your actual lack of intelligence.”
haha what are you talking about? Why are you assuming that I’m critiquing “shoddy online tests”? My “flat out rejection reveals”…my “bias”? Does your acceptance of them “reveal your bias”?
“Finally, still no IQ score….? LOL looks like I was right about you. Probably too ashamed of your score to reveal it or perhaps too scared to take one because you know you will score poorly. An honest person with integrity would admit as much, but I guess you chose a different route by attempting to discredit and undermine what you are not good at. Critiques are welcome, absolute nonsense and underhandedness is not.”‘
Why does it matter? Melo told you what it is—it has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. What is your IQ? If it is high, then you accept it because you scored high and want to justify it.
See how that works and where it gets us? Nowhere.
When I said “You’re speaking nonsense”, I’ve never come across anyone who speaks to me in the way you’re describing—you just have unfounded assumptions.
“For someone who seems to be spending so much time trying to discredit IQ testing surely at some point you attempted to take an actual IQ test. If you haven’t then you are not to be taken seriously. So what is it, what is your IQ score? My guess is that your performance IQ is dire(no more than 105, I’ve had enough conversations with you to know your logical reasoning is very very poor and your concept formation is severely lacking) while your verbal seems to be comfortably above average which appears to be your only saving grace. So a composite of 115-120 might be in the cards for you(If I were being generous). Not enough for Mensa though hmmmm”
IQ-ists are a trip. You think I care about Mensa or any other ‘societies’? hahaha.
What you think of me and my “composite” IQ is irrelevant to the discussion.
You’re talking about my “IQ” is a joke—ask me about what I’ve accomplished in my life.
King meLo
“His IQ is 110. I don’t know what test he took though.”
Right, you probably posted your comment while i was typing up mine but in any case I pretty much thought as much though I decided to be kind and give him a few points extra. Nevertheless my position on the topic hasn’t changed, up to a 20 IQ point increase is possible(even for RR) assuming the person does everything right, good positive attitude(meaning no nonsense, absolute honesty, with yourself at least, and not wasting your time trying to prove bullshit so that you can make yourself feel better), driven, focused, good health, discipline and a lot of hard work can give the average person a nice little boost(assuming average motivation, average schooling etc etc prior to deciding to beef up their brain power). You see I feel that much like we can train our bodies to be stronger and healthier we can do the same with our minds. A lot of people don’t realize that they are not making the most out of what they got. Of course if one is already pushing their brain to the limit(typical high flying university student) then don’t expect much of an increase but in all likelihood that person is already pretty smart.
So to make my theory a little more concrete, I believe that everyone is born with a fixed potential for intelligence. This potential or intelligence ceiling is fixed and is different for everyone, however the average person is not making the most of their potential and thus under-performing in terms of IQ. Now IQ tests don’t measure this potential they simply measure your intelligence at any one time. Also note that an IQ score is not an absolute score of intelligence but rather a relative one(relative to other people, most people don’t know this), so if other people get smarter your score goes down and if other people get dumber your score increases. Of course large population wide swings like that don’t often happen while adverse or exceptionally favorable conditions take a while to impact IQ. Also some individuals stand to gain more than others which means that on an individual basis some(I stress the word some) people can realize that 20 IQ point boost but with large populations the increase is probably going to be a little more modest(around 10 points) assuming they have some serious catching up to do economically nutritionally, in terms of overall health and perhaps culturally too.
So in closing IQ tests aren’t what most people think they are and intelligence in people is a little more fluid(ie variable) than people think. So in as much as people subscribe to IQ absolutism(your IQ score is your IQ score and you’re stuck with it for life) I stand on the critiquing side however in as much as people completely dismiss IQ tests as not remotely a measure of intelligence I basically scoff at their stupidity. I believe that IQ stands on a dynamic and fluid landscape but once again don’t imagine anything too dramatic(up to 20 points is possible in some cases, most people will only see 5-10 depending on where they kick off and how much effort they put in). IQ can be viewed much like we view sprinting, the more talented performers win the race but unlike sprinting, IQ is a race we ALL participate in(whether we like it or not) not just those with talent. Our livelihood and well being depends on it, and except for lazy, indifferent, or checked out individuals everyone realizes that staying sharp is the name of the game.
“I pretty much thought as much though I decided to be kind and give him a few points extra. Nevertheless my position on the topic hasn’t changed, up to a 20 IQ point increase is possible(even for RR) assuming the person does everything right, good positive attitude(meaning no nonsense, absolute honesty, with yourself at least, and not wasting your time trying to prove bullshit so that you can make yourself feel better), driven, focused, good health, discipline and a lot of hard work can give the average person a nice little boost(assuming average motivation, average schooling etc etc prior to deciding to beef up their brain power). ”
You are so gracious to be so kind and “give [me] a few points extra.” Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the arguments I push are “to provide bullshit to make [myself] feel better”?
“I believe that everyone is born with a fixed potential for intelligence.”
Is this “fixed potential” ‘innate’?
You’ve yet to tackle with Strenio on test construction and the ultimate claim that differences in IQ are built into the test. See Terman (1916) on sex differences in IQ. He realized that men and women scores differently, while his assumption was that the two sexes should score the same. So he constructed his test in a way to make them equal. He removed and added items until he got what he wanted. This was for his Stanford-Binet test. Something similar happened with the Afrikaaners and another white cultural group in South Africa. It was noticed that there was a 15 point gap between the two white cultural groups, and so, to quell any discussion of “genetic differences” in IQ, they specifically constructed the test to eliminate the differences (see Hilliard, 2012, Straightening the Bell Curve).
This is outright evidence that score differences are due to the test constructors’presuppositions on who is or is not ‘intelligent.’
RR
“Brain size is anatomic. Same shoddy Jensen-Rushton-like correlations and imputing them as causes—what else is new.”
You really are a stubborn fool. A larger brain means more neurons, you know, the cells in our brains responsible for processing information, making computations, and finding solutions? It stands to reason that a larger brain(all else equal, ie same connectivity mtDNA etc) means more computational power and greater ability to store information. Much like a larger muscle usually means greater force produced, a larger engine means more horsepower, a larger hard disk means more storage capacity and a larger processor means more processing power in a PC. This is biology/physics/reality 101.
Want to now how I know that I am talking to an idiot? Well it has a strong correlation with how much I’m having to explain(especially if I have to talk about obvious stuff).
“I don’t see any justification for this assumption.”
That’s because you aren’t very bright. That or you are trying to dismiss away your inadequacy which would make you an idiot AND a charlatan.
“Where?”
here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
“haha what are you talking about? Why are you assuming that I’m critiquing “shoddy online tests”?”
Then which tests are you critiquing and what in your opinion are there flaws which disqualify them from being intelligence tests. Is such a thing as an IQ test possible in your mind and why? Do you think people have inherent differences in intelligence or are you fully subscribed to the blank slate theory(in other words geniuses are made)?
” My “flat out rejection reveals”…my “bias”? Does your acceptance of them “reveal your bias”?”
Actually I do have some criticisms but on the whole I accept them or to be more precise I accept some of them about 90%(for the more professional tests). Bottom line is however that you have much more to lose by accepting them than I have by rejecting them. I scored very high but even if I reject them it would not impact my life one iota, so I have no real vested interest in accepting them and if anything I might be making my social life more difficult by accepting them since it is pretty much taboo to announce your IQ. I very very rarely do and only if I’m pressed by someone I trust. I think I did once here but this site is different as it is anonymous and well it is a site in part dedicated to IQ after all. So outside of some self gratification there is really no gain in being an IQ test proponent.
On the flip side if you accept them you have to figure out how to deal with your mediocrity and if you’re a particularly proud person this can be a huge blow to your ego(all evidence points towards you having a pretty big ego). So a savvy betting man would probably put the odds at 80/20, that is 80% chance that you were biased and 20% chance that I was the biased one and that is before this person even began to examine the actual science.
Yet there is still that 20% chance that you might not be biased, well that’s where this site comes in where anyone can go through your comments post by post where it is blatantly obvious your argumentation is poor, your intelligence is questionable and you pretty much give the game away within a few sentences of discussing this topic.
“I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
If by this you mean that you think the correlation of IQ tests and intelligence is zero then you my friend are a moron. ALL tests are correlated to intelligence to some degree or other. That is if we could magically know people’s inherent intelligence and tested 100 of them with a random test we would most likely find that the average IQ of the top 50 scorers was higher than the average IQ of the bottom 50 scorers on this test. This is truer(ie more highly correlated) for some tests than others until we finally get to IQ tests where it is as true as it gets(given the current state of intelligence testing).
“You really are a stubborn fool. A larger brain means more neurons, you know, the cells in our brains responsible for processing information, making computations, and finding solutions? It stands to reason that a larger brain(all else equal, ie same connectivity mtDNA etc) means more computational power and greater ability to store information. Much like a larger muscle usually means greater force produced, a larger engine means more horsepower, a larger hard disk means more storage capacity and a larger processor means more processing power in a PC.”
Are correlations causes?
“Want to now how I know that I am talking to an idiot? Well it has a strong correlation with how much I’m having to explain(especially if I have to talk about obvious stuff).”
“Never ask anyone to elaborate.”
“That’s because you aren’t very bright. That or you are trying to dismiss away your inadequacy which would make you an idiot AND a charlatan.”
On what grounds is this justified?
“Do you think people have inherent differences in intelligence or are you fully subscribed to the blank slate theory(in other words geniuses are made)?”
Are you framing this as nature vs nurture?
“I have by rejecting them. I scored very high but even if I reject them it would not impact my life one iota, so I have no real vested interest in accepting them and if anything I might be making my social life more difficult by accepting them since it is pretty much taboo to announce your IQ. I very very rarely do and only if I’m pressed by someone I trust. I think I did once here but this site is different as it is anonymous and well it is a site in part dedicated to IQ after all. So outside of some self gratification there is really no gain in being an IQ test proponent.
On the flip side if you accept them you have to figure out how to deal with your mediocrity and if you’re a particularly proud person this can be a huge blow to your ego(all evidence points towards you having a pretty big ego). So a savvy betting man would probably put the odds at 80/20, that is 80% chance that you were biased and 20% chance that I was the biased one and that is before this person even began to examine the actual science.”
Who just announces their IQ as if it has any bearing on the real world? My IQ is irrelevant to the arguments that I provide.
“anyone can go through your comments post by post where it is blatantly obvious your argumentation is poor, your intelligence is questionable and you pretty much give the game away within a few sentences of discussing this topic.”
What “game” did I “give away”? Quote me.
“If by this you mean that you think the correlation of IQ tests and intelligence is zero then you my friend are a moron. ALL tests are correlated to intelligence to some degree or other. That is if we could magically know people’s inherent intelligence and tested 100 of them with a random test we would most likely find that the average IQ of the top 50 scorers was higher than the average IQ of the bottom 50 scorers on this test. This is truer(ie more highly correlated) for some tests than others until we finally get to IQ tests where it is as true as it gets(given the current state of intelligence testing).”
Yea, ignore what I wrote on South Africa and IQ and sex differences in IQ and test construction.
“You are so gracious to be so kind and “give [me] a few points extra.” ”
Well you’re welcome! Mind you by “give” I don’t mean that I imparted IQ points to you, you earned your points fair and square, all 110 of them. No, I was being kind and evaluating you higher than I thought you actually were. No joke, I was thinking 105 performance and 115 verbal, whatever composite that produces. Though maybe 120 is still in the cards for you if only you would stop warping your mind with all this nonsense, getting into discussions like these and taking massive blows to your ego and confidence.
“Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the arguments I push are “to provide bullshit to make [myself] feel better”?”
Primarily this sentence and every other time you alluded to this position of yours:
“I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.”
Only an idiot would say something as extreme as that or possibly someone who is invested in undermining the validity of IQ tests.
But alas I don’t think you’re an idiot idiot despite my harsh language at times. I think your IQ result is pretty accurate actually…no your problem stems from your enormous ego and pride. Which essentially only leaves us with the other option, you’re trying to pull a fast one on everyone but most importantly yourself. Its sad really.
“Is this “fixed potential” ‘innate’?”
Yes but more importantly it is fixed meaning that it is absolute and short of tinkering with your genes it is impossible to change.
“You’ve yet to tackle with Strenio on test construction and the ultimate claim that differences in IQ are built into the test. See Terman (1916) on sex differences in IQ. He realized that men and women scores differently, while his assumption was that the two sexes should score the same. So he constructed his test in a way to make them equal. He removed and added items until he got what he wanted. This was for his Stanford-Binet test. Something similar happened with the Afrikaaners and another white cultural group in South Africa. It was noticed that there was a 15 point gap between the two white cultural groups, and so, to quell any discussion of “genetic differences” in IQ, they specifically constructed the test to eliminate the differences (see Hilliard, 2012, Straightening the Bell Curve).”
So in your view one test designer tinkering with his test in order to remove a few points(no more than 5) in order to balance the sexes in 1916 is reason enough to completely dismiss IQ tests all together and proclaim that IQ tests “are not tests of intelligence”(implying zero correlation of IQ tests and intelligence)? My first instinct right now was to come at you with a massive put down but I realize that none of it has yet to wake you up. So I’ll try a different tactic…
hahahahahahahahahahahaha….
hahahahahahahhahahahahah….
hahahahahahahahahhahaha….
Seriously dude you are a gluton for punishment.
That means absolutely nothing. So lets say that he managed to skew his test 5% in favor of women, this would hardly impact the correlation of IQ to intelligence. So if before his correlation was 0.95 it would now be 0.9 or something, still very very high.
As for the Afrikaaners vs English whites this seems somewhat anecdotal. What I do find interesting is the race and sex of the author. Is this another case of “sour grapes”? I mean she could be trying to undermine IQ tests because they cast her race in a bad light. Not saying this is the case with her(have not examined her circumstances enough, unlike with you), just a thought. Btw are you of African descent?
In any case I have not looked into this enough while I cannot find a full online print of her book to read the relevant sections nor am I interested in purchasing what appears to be verging on propaganda so I’ll just leave it at that(perhaps look into the matter in time). But even if I were to grant you that this is thoroughly factual, we are now looking at a 15% skew so from a 0.95 correlation it drops down to 0.7 or something like that. THAT IS STILL VERY HIGH, AND HARDY WARRANTS THE STATEMENT “I don’t accept the claim that IQ tests are tests of intelligence.” Wake up dude!!!!
“Are correlations causes?”
First of all you framed your question as would a mentally challenged person akin to ‘is an apple an orange’.
Secondly the common saying is “correlation does not equal causation” problem is that is flat out wrong, and is simply used by university professors to deprogram 1st year students. The correct way to phrase it is ” correlation does not necessarily imply a causal link” or “correlation is not always due to causation”. If you haven’t caught on by now, YES correlation very often IS due to causation, you bleeding retard. This is one of those times.
“Never ask anyone to elaborate.”
What?
“On what grounds is this justified?”
On the grounds that you are tragically wrong in your position and so this leaves us with only a couple of explanations.
“Are you framing this as nature vs nurture?”
Yes, what is your position on this? Nature, nurture or a bit of both and if so how much?
“Who just announces their IQ”
Perhaps “reveal” might be a better word to use there. But in any case if one is heavily invested in the IQ debate in favor of IQ tests and also has a high IQ then their IQ would often come up in conversation/discussion and so this can amount to a kind of “announcement”, but no reveal is what I meant to say.
Wow, haha. Comedy gold from both PH and RR.
a shorter explanation
Anime, I used to compete in math tournaments as a kid and would usually win county. I won multiple school-wide competitions. And on top of that, I placed for in county for digit deal. This meant that I won fourth place in one competition out of maybe twenty competitions, making a total of eighty kids who competed at that tournament placing equal or better than me.
This county is located in Southern California btw, so it’s populated by at least a dozen thousand kids, maybe more.
Pumpkin should’ve sold his idea for this blog to Twitter. He would’ve garnered a lot of political and intellectual clout. No cap.
Honor culture not only breeds the most important survival mechanism known to humanity, testosterone, but also a free-for-all of greatness.
I’ve always said to my Jewish friends if they knew of the fact that if society was lawless and faithful, faithful and lawful, or lawful and faithless. Seems like it’s gotta be one of those three. The fourth is lawless and faithless. That would be the pinnacle of doom for humanity.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/15/race-testosterone-and-honor-culture/
Are you possessed by the delusion that testosterone causes aggression?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/28/race-testosterone-aggression-and-prostate-cancer/
I’m not but yes I had your posts in mind when I wrote that comment. Specifically the first one you linked to. Extraordinary stuff.
I had a lot of Jewish friends in my life…so many now that I assume I’m Jewish…
You are disgusting. This is complete thrash. How can you say you are some sort of genius and like watching shit like this? Its completely contradictory.
Its not. Those people embody who I truly am, want to be, and already have been.
I want to become a killer with a killer mindset and these people are the purest forms of just that, a remorseless person who is willing to do anything to win at life.
Pumpkin is not only the moderator of this blog but he is the moderator of modern society and life itself.
You need help
I have no bone to pick with you, it shouldn’t end up being the reverse either. I’m just in a dark place atm but I’ll get out of it. maybe not in this life…but ill get out of it.
Digit deal is a game where you’re given like four numbers and have to use either multiplication, division, addition or subtraction to successfully get those numbers to equal zero. It’s a really neat game and I excelled at it. Was the only kid that year to successfully get a zero on one equation.
Sorry, meant *an* equation. No one else got a zero so anything higher than one wasn’t even possible for any of the competitors.
I think it might’ve actually been six….six numbers. Imagine that. Being given six random digits and trying to reach a target of zero using only the basic mathematical properties. Shit’s hard.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/nov/26/ringside-seat-on-decade-with-greta-thunberg-first-protest
I think Greta must be the unintentionally most funniest celeb alive right now.
Impulsiveness is the greatest threat to socially normal behavior because social behavior is an instinct; a complex one, but an instinct nonetheless. Instincts are unconscious and always objective. There’s an objectivity to interpreting to and reacting correctly to social situations, it just takes time to think things through and usually people don’t have the access to and/or time-management skills to actually make the right decision.
All events in this Universe have direct consequences and indirect consequences. The indirect consequences lead to butterfly-effect like occurrences to happen. This is a great explanation for how social interactions can and are objective because if a social interaction does not go the way it’s supposed to, then destiny fails to prevail.
This is my interpretation of how reality works: basically, an entity like the Universe runs on order and structure and accurate mechanisms that allow it to sustain itself. However, when chaos is brought into the picture, we see that one chaotic event seems to proliferate even more chaos. If one chaotic event occurs, we see that it keeps compounding on itself and causing more and more chaos to occur.
Social interactions are greatly analogous to this. If you make a mistake in a social interaction (I believe all social interactions can be perfected by a system in which innate forces cause an interaction to occur in a systematic cause-and-effect relationship), the rest of the social interaction will continue to compound the number of mistakes happening.
This is why I believe all interactions in the Universe, especially interpersonal interactions, are linked between each other. Chaos proliferates itself and causes other social interactions to go incorrectly. It’s like a spider-web of interactions and actions and everything happening simultaneously. Time can also be explained by this, if you think enough about it.
Also, found something that might help Pumpkinhead’s argument a bit: https://thechessworld.com/articles/healthpsycology/chess-rating-and-iq-score-correlation/
According to this website, a chess player’s ELO rating is IQ times ten and then an additional thousand points. If this is an accurate way of attaining someone’s ELO score, then yes, working backwards, we would arrive at the conclusion that people with IQs of 180+ exist in the chess world.
Apparently, though, Garry Kasparov’s IQ should be a 180+ too but when tested, he scored a 135, so it’s hard to say if chess can be an accurate way of measuring intelligence and could indeed bolster my argument that there’s no biological way of attaining a score higher than 160.
No chess is correlated at only 0.33 with IQ meaning intelligence is only 10% of success. Why ? Because at same level of knowledge, highest IQ always win. But we re never at same level of knowledge.
Best players haves memorized more than 300k configurations. It’s like recognizing face. If you memorize it, it’s easier than inducing who is the person in front of you.
Rote memory learning is the mental faculty that has the lowest correlation with intelligence : 0.1. Less than 1%.
So average chess player who has an elo ranking is 110 because you need brain to like the game. But then top 200 players out of 3 millions, instead of adding 60 IQ points, will add 0.3 * 60 = 18, or 128, meaning just gifted. For the 9 best players average, you would add 0.3 * 70 = 21 to 110 = 131. The best player being at 135 is on average perfectly normal. You don’t have that much intelligent people who want to spend 5 hours a day during at least 15 years rote learning positions ….
That’s why the absence of women speaks more about their character than their IQ. And there is also an advantage in being trained because even if you want to learn, you need access to the knowledge. That would explain 50% of former Jewish dominance, the other 50% being having half of their people at or above 110 instead of 25% like whites
For Jewish people over representation not in Elo ranking (4%) but among if best grand masters (60%) instead of 1%, IQ would explain at the 130 level, a four times increase, and industriousness and access to knowledge (group help), the rest *15 times, meaning IQ was less than 20% and social environement 80%.
Chess showed Jewish being much more ambitious, competitive and obsessional and willing to train ans help each other than anything else …
This is something puppy will like. Basically they are saying blacks don’t do well because they never got the perfect start – 2 parents, good schooling etc. Afro and Puppy like this argument.
But it hides the fact that black kids would do better if their dad stuck around!
Well to be fair even if the dad stuck around it might not make a difference knowing what we know about IQs.
Pete Buttigieg is a smart guy. He’s also gay which will help him with the dem elites (i.e. wall street jews). I wonder what he stance on Palestinians is.
Puppy why do you never mention Bill Gates wife. I thought you said women deserve more recognition. Shouldn’t you claim that gates would not be successful without his wife.
I wonder if the africa worship is her idea and bill who is socially inept just went along to make her happy.
It would be hilarious if Bill Gates put himself up for sale as a slave and Oprah bought him. Hahaha. Good ol puppy.
And then they shot a movie about Bill Gates new life on the plantation growing corn for Oprah to eat and tobacco for her to chew. Oprah would walk around in a cowboy hat and jeans and keep saying “Yessum. Imm Hmmm” and spit out tobacco now and again while gates worked in the searing heat with cracked glasses and a dirty pink jumper.
Then Oprah would get nasty if Gates slacked off or took a break and there would be a graphic scene where Oprah stripped Melinda Gates and started whipping her while saying the phrase “How you like straight ha-ayah (hair) now white girl, Imm Hmm”.
That’s pretty much the plot of 12 Years a Slave. Michael Fassbender was so fucking hilarious I was on the floor half the movie.
Its source material is excellent, though. Credit where it’s due.
i have to hand it to peepee.
i’m so autistic that i still think there’s a very small chance you might not be peepee.
You’re fucking nuts, bro. You have some sort of problem for trying to put that picture into peoples’ heads.
Disturbing…
Being a troll requires a heap of creativity, intelligence, and other resourceful traits. So I don’t know if it’s necessarily the worst thing to be from a cognitive perspective.
And can someone define what a troll exactly is? Because I’ve been called one countless times and harassed relentlessly by people because of it.
I know some of their attributes as listed above, but would like a better picture of what defines a troll.
Puppy is a troll. He moderates all my best material.
Oh I knew that. He does the same to me so dont take it personally.
>A lecture on autism with a comment section full of autism
Was this a planned experiment pp?
I’m the most well-spoken guy I know. Most people are too technical when deriving answers to scientific questions but I stay poised and ready to tackle the problem with the same objectivity I would any other, thus making me the most articulate person on this blog by far.
The rest of you sound like you have an incurable case of schizotypal mixed with borderline.